' SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order, dated 12-6-1998, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No.71-R of 1998.
2. The relevant facts are that Pirzada Abdul Khaliq respondent, who is a displaced person from Jammu and Kashmir, filed his claim form for property abandoned by him in occupied Kashmir, which included a residential bungalow and some agricultural land. His claim was verified by the Claims Officer on 2-2-1980, but no allotment of land was made in his favour. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed a Constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court, which was accepted vide order, dated 12-6-1998; the relevant portion whereof runs as under:-- "Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents Nos.1 to 2 to allot rural land measuring 12-1/2 acres anywhere in the Punjab out of the poll of land created for Jammu and Kashmir refugees. It is made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled, keeping in view of the statement made by the learned counsel, to claim further allotment of any land in lieu of outstanding units."
3. Feeling aggrieved, Board of Revenue has filed this petition contending that the case of the respondent did not fall within the ambit of pending proceedings, as envisaged by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975.
4. The High Court had passed the impugned judgment on the offer of the respondent that he will be satisfied in case the allotment of land up to the extent of subsisting holding i.e. 12-1/2 acres was made to him anywhere in Punjab out of the land reserved for Jammu and Kashmir refugees and that he would not press his rights for satisfaction of the remaining entitlement. Learned Law Officer representing the petitioner before the High Court had categorically stated that being a fair stance he could not have any objection to the disposal of the writ petition on the said basis. This concession on the part of the learned Law Officer led to the passage of the impugned judgment with the condition that the respondent would be entitled to the allotment of rural land measuring 12-1/2 acres anywhere in the Punjab out of law pool of land created for Jammu and Kashmir refugees, and that he would not claim any further allotment of land in lieu of his outstanding units.
The point as to whether the claim of the respondent fell within the ambit of pending proceedings was not agitated before the learned High Court, hence, it cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in this Court.
' In the above circumstances, the petition is dismissed and the leave is refused.